mattp

I somewhat agree with alpinist here, Cracked. First, I'll admit that I telemark only because of a historical accident (I abandoned alpine skiing to eat granola and take up cross-country skiing, then the telemark fad came along). ON SKIS, I believe AT gear is probably safer and more effective on steep technical terrain (though telemark gear is better for more touring-oriented terrain). But I've done a lot of mountaineering in my telemark boots and I think they generally ARE more comfortable when travelling ON FOOT. I've never had a problem with the duck bill or with the flexibility of the sole on trails or on snow (these are not helpful features on rock). I've also done a fair number of water ice and mixed climbs with my telemark boots and they perform just fine (I use rigid crampons).

As much as anything else "fast and light" is an advertising campaign designed to attract sponsorship and sell books, magazines and gear. Yes, there have been some amazing accomplishments in recent years as the "new style" has taken hold, but it is really not new. Gu is new and of course nobody ever climbed THOSE particular routes in a "single push" before, but for as long as I can remember there has been a pretty steady progress toward faster ascents and lighter gear, with some climbers taking great pride in climbing such-and-such a route with just a day pack and a great deal of praise being lavished on those who are able to run up something that previously was done only with siege tactics. Lots of good points have been made here, but the bottom line remains: know your limits and think about what you are doing. A faster ascent and descent may minimize your exposure to certain environmental hazards, it may be fun, or you may enjoy the challenge of it - and it may gain you some respect or admiration. However, if you start leaving important gear behind (not the totally unnecessary items like all that extra camping equipment and "toys" like your camera or whatever) you will almost certainly be compromising comfort and you will probably be compromising safety should your plan not quite work out. And when, in the name of speed, you start soloing or simul-climbing things that you would otherwise belay, or when you decide to run it out across avalanche slopes in the middle of the sun rather than wait for a safer time of day, you know you are gambling. Fast and light is fine, but don't be fooled by marketing and don't let folks tell you that the approach that you wish to take is more or less valid than somebody else's. To each their own, but, in my view, the current fixation on "time, car-to-car" is a little misguided.

You can do it, Josh. I skied it, in October, in fog, on a relatively low snow year. I did it just for the novelty (trying to get turns all year), and there was a short section where we had to take the skis off; there was a little bit of bare ice and some minor wandering around crevasses, but nothing serious (we did not put on crampons and there were no scary bridges or anything). It'll be fine unless by "any sort of real crevasse challenges would have to be avoided" you mean that your friend doesn't want to have to walk near step over anyting they might fall into.

In that case, try it at somebody else's house - especially on Saturday night after having a few cocktails. It is a good party trick your host will be sure to appreciate. JUST DON'T RUN IT MORE THAN A SECOND OR TWO.

Try it!

For more fun and entertainment with a microwave, put a light bulb in there. Don't let it run for more than a second or two, though.

Now I see where people may be getting some of their bad habits - from a poor job of restating the law by the Department of Licensing! After looking at that DOL webpage noted by Rockhard, and finding the excerpt about not entering the intersection if you cannot get through it, I decided to look in Chapter 46.61 of the RCW, the statutes which actually set forth those "rules of the road." What I saw was and Unless there is some other law that I missed, I don't think it is in fact illegal to pull out and wait in the middle of the intersection if you are going to be turning left, are not obstructing traffic, and are not going to get stuck there. I think philfort is right that the lack of a requirement for driver's ed encourages the proliferation of bad driving habits.

Rock - That would be a stupid law, though it wouldn't surprise me. However, they can still watch the light, and when they see it turn yellow they can go for it, no?

How about those idiots who are waiting to make a left turn in two-way traffic, and wait behind the line (before entering the intersection) or fail to fully pull out into the intersection and thereby needlessly cause the car behind them to have to wait behind the line. I'm talking about situations when there is no back-up on the cross street, so no chance of getting caught in the intersection if you pull out. I believe it is perfectly legal and safe to pull out, yet their hesitance to do so often causes them and perhaps the driver behind them to completely miss their chance to make a left turn until the next light cycle.

In the context of the litigation that was mentioned at the outset of this thread, I think one of the first questions would be whether the airlines, Boeing, Port Authority, or the WTC had some kind of duty to take some precautionary measures that they elected not to take. My guess is that the answer to this question is vague but mostly no. (RobBob noted that any civil engineer probably already knows that the buildings were going to collapse after being hit, though, so maybe they should have ordered an evacuation quicker or something). If the answer to this first question is yes, it would then be time to look at whether and how the failure on the part of the airlines, Boeing, Port Authority, or WTC may have actually caused injury (death) to the "victims" and then the third general question would be whether the "victims" had similar duties or ability to foresee the disaster or what they may have failed to do to protect themselves. By the way, I gotta say that I agree with the general feeling that I don't think the victim's families should be able to prevail in this matter, and also the idea (not expressed) that the airlines, Boeing, Port Authority, and WTC were also "victims" here.

Sisu, it sounds as if you had good representation in your dispute with your employer but I would not always recommend that somebody look for the wolverine. If you are paying your attorney by the hour, many aggressive attorney's can take a four-hour matter and turn it into forty without substantially improving their client's position. This may happen because the attorney's are greedy, but it also sometimes happens because it reflects their sense of professionalism (they may feel it is unprofessional to do less than everything they can for their client, or to "give in" even on issues that don't matter), and it sometimes happens because their clients ask for this kind of service.

Mount Baker or Three Fingers might offer some fun. Baker of course lacks the moderate rock that you described, but it is one hell of a beautiful mountain, and on Three Fingers you could start with the North Peak, and then hit Middle and South if time permitted.

[grovel] Fairweather, I do not presume to speak for you or all of Americans. My views are my own. I do believe, however, that many Americans are not willing or interested or able to look our relationship with the rest of the world in anything like a balanced manner. How else can I (or you) explain that, as of June, most Americans thought we had in fact (already) found weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq or that, as of yesterday, most Americans think that Saddam was somehow responsible for 911? I believe these are clear examples of self-delusion: many or most Americans find a way to convince theirselves of these things even though neither our elected officials nor even the most hawkish pundits in our national media have said them. I believe that you have repeatedly asserted in the media bias discussions that your views are mainstream and the liberal press is way left of center. Within the last week you told us that you really don't care if Bush"mislead" us about the reasons we were going into Iraq. If you speak for the mainstream, and if you think it is OK for our government to give us false information if that information supports the war effort, how can you say that you and this mainstream that you speak for are not wanting information that supports your view rather than information which may be accurate? When you assert that "we have scattered al queda, at least for a time," are you meaning to suggest that they are today less organized or less capable of carrying out their attacks than they were two years ago? In light of their ongoing activities, and considering yesterday's news article, isn't your assertion an example of what I am talking about (again, assuming that you speak for the mainstream)? You have told us that most Americans trust Fox news rather than the traditional nationally respected media. Do you assert that Fox's mission is to provide fair and balanced information? [End of Grovel]

Sorry rbw, you are right. I "impliedly" but not "specifically" said I was "NOT arguing that the blame for any increase in litigiousness lies entirely on the insurance companies, or even primarily upon them." Rather than to state it specifically, I wrote that "Do these and similar insurance company practices belie the fact that we are a society of irresponsible whiners? Probably not, but I do not believe that the "problem" is entirely the fault of greedy lawyers and their irresponsible clients." I'm a lawyer. I lie. But I don't think I'd be wrong to suggest that the far greater amount of distortion and just plain lying that we read or hear in the media with respect to this issue comes from those that try to argue that plaintiff's attorneys are to blame for everything from high insurance costs to court congestion to the inability of our government to provide basic services.

Obviously, it is not over yet - but it is probably a little too early to start crowing about even a temporary success at this point.

Take another look at my posts, RBW. I specifically stated that I am NOT arguing that the blame for any increase in litigiousness lies entirely on the insurance companies, or even primarily upon them. I AM arguing that one should not be fooled by spokesmen from some industry groups (primarily insurance companies) and a bunch of cynical politicians who are trying to say that the entire blame lies with the greedy trial lawyers and some sudden lack of personal responsibility. Are there a lot of greedy trial attorneys out there? Of course there are. The profession attracts lots of jerks and to be a successful trial attorney you almost HAVE to be aggressive and good at manipulating people. I used to think that Plaintiff's attorneys represented the worst among my profession, but for the last four or five years I have shared an office with one and, yes, he fits some of the stereotypes. But once I've had the opportunity to hear things from his point of view I have come to the conclusion that, on average, insurance defense attorneys may be the lowest of the lot (and I have personally known some of them over the years, as well). Still, it takes both sides to make our system work -- even if you aren't completley happy with how it stumbles along.

I do not practice personal injury law, but I can tell you that it is well known that certain insurance companies make it a practice to play hardball in EVERY case and will deny a claim or try to settle a claim for next to nothing, no matter what. If this happens to you and you don't hire an attorney you are some kind of idiot. And, in my own experience, I have never faked or inflated a single insurance claim, but I have been screwed by my insurance company more than once. I have not been involved in very many car accidents in my life, but I DID have my insurance company (Farmers) tell me that coverage for my whiplash injury "expired" after one year, even though I was still suffering pain and undergoing medical expenses and missing work. They also terminated my policy and cause me to have to obtain high risk insurance because after I paid my premiums for fifteen years without filing a single claim, they paid two claims a single year - the first resulting from an accident in a "no fault" insurance state where my company had to pay my losses even though the other driver was ticketed, and the second resulting from my truck being stolen while I was parked in downtown Seattle during the work day. These kinds of practices DO foster a general mistrust of insurance companies and generate litigation. Do these and similar insurance company practices belie the fact that we are a society of irresponsible whiners? Probably not, but I do not bgelieve that the "problem" is entirely the fault of greedy lawyers and their irresponsible clients. I am not an expert in business practices, either, but let's take the example of the tobacco industry. All the right wing commentators and industry lobbiests say that it is a sign of personal irresponsibility that someone would smoke all their life and then hold RJ Reynolds responsible, but the known fact is that they lied and concealed what they knew about the dangers of their products -- for many many years -- and that they continue to heavily market to kids when they know they are literally killing people. Meanwhile, they made gazillions of dollars. Should these liars and crooks go to jail and all of thier assets be seized by the government, or should the companies face liability for what they oversaw? Or should they be allowed to have made such profits without facing any consequences? No, I do not. I don't know enough about the issue to say whether or what kind of tort reform would be appropriate, however, and I don't trust those who are in favor of tort reform to have my interests in mind. I DO think the attack on trial lawyers is driven by a very malicioius and cynically motivated campaign to promote general hysteria and distrust of our legal system.

Low angle raps are a pain in the neck, but sometimes I have had better luck making short raps on that kind of terrain - try using a single rope and rapping 80 feet instead of using two ropes and going 160. I don't think there are enough anchors to do that up there right now, but there may be.

If that is the case, I do not believe that your parents reflect the "norm" for their generation as you would have us believe. They may have some weird and extreme distrust for the legal system, but their failure to want to hold the drunk millionaire responsible for his act would not, in my opinion, be either intelligent, productive, or commendable -- and it would be particularly sad if what you say is true and they are in any way dependent upon you financially but you have no life insurance policy that would benefit them. I don't suggest that there aren't plenty of greedy lawyers, or that frivolous lawsuits are not a problem. I do think the "problem" is often mischaracterized by insurance companies who are acting in their own monetary interest, and by cynical politicians who reduce the issue to a simple and populist cartoon in order to further their own position.

Actually, I don't think that is true. I recall Beck filling us in on his progress toward gaining sponsors way back as early as May or something, and he brought some glossy material to a pubclub that I think took place in June but nobody was really all that interested. 'Round about July, there was a bit of a shock when he announced there would be professonal beer servers and a beer garden, and then there was general outrage when he started proclaiming Ropeup to be "his" festival and stuff like that. He has not shown much sensitivity to the concerns being expressed by some of the more vociferous posters around here, but in fact I don't think he has really been plotting "behind closed doors." Aside from the history of HOW WE GOT HERE, however, is the question WHAT DO WE DO NOW? I just think it looks like lots of people around here want to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Good. Now that we have established that factors like insurance company practices, regulatory climate, and irresponsible business practices have nothing to do with litigation we can move on to talk about how to fix the system. Let me guess: tort reform?

Did you and your friend figure out how to make the thing revert to "steady" light? The disco option might come in handy, I suppose, if I could control it.

Mr. K: I only partly agree with you about the cheastbeating thing. Yes, if somebody carries on like an idiot in their route report, the "deserve" to be made fun of. They would "deserve" ridicule if they unreasonably complained about how bad the weather was when they encountered a windless whiteout on the way to Camp Muir in November, too, or if they were asking what kind of gear to bring for a given climb at Exit 38. But all of this is rather subjective, and what you think is rediculous may in fact not appear so to somebody else. So, in general, I think that we ought to steer away from ridiculing even cheastbeaters in the route reports forum. But you are right: sometimes they deserve it.

Cracked: Here is what I wrote on this topic in a thread re "what belongs in route reports" last winter:

Those seem to be pretty good, Erik, though it is a nuisance to have to use the 4.5 volt batteries that are not widely available and the lamp is not nearly so bright when you use AA's, is it? Also, don't you have to unplug the battery to prevent the thing from turning on in your pack? (Maybe I'm just exepecting too much, I know.)